Did God predestinate the church in Pergamos in Rev 2 to disobey Him, so that He needed to correct them?

[Crazy Ivan]

Unbelief is continual state of sin. Their Father is Satan (Jn 8:44).

Unrighteous vs Declare righteous in Christ.

But that doesn't mean the unregenerate cannot do good things. It's possible for an unregenerate person to commit an act that isn't a sinful act. It's not meritorious for salvation, but not every single thing an unregenerate person does is sin.

 

[fltom]

View attachment 5255

Scripture

Acts 10:1–4 (NASB 2020) — 1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and made many charitable contributions to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And he looked at him intently and became terrified, and said, “What is it, lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and charitable gifts have ascended as a memorial offering before God.

 

[Howie]

But that doesn't mean the unregenerate cannot do good things. It's possible for an unregenerate person to commit an act that isn't a sinful act. It's not meritorious for salvation, but not every single thing an unregenerate person does is sin.

Yes, further, in scripture, they are designated sinners, believers = saints.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Yes, further, in scripture, they are designated sinners, believers = saints.

Those designations do not mean that every single act of an unregenerate person is sin, nor is every single act of a regenerate person pleasing to the Lord. You have agreed that the Bible talks about many actions by unregenerate people that are good (the Bible even calls them "righteous" in some instances).

 

[shroom]

Unbelief is continual state of sin. Their Father is Satan (Jn 8:44).

John 8:44 is not talking about typical Joe Unbeliever. It's talking about the Pharisees, who were wicked. Their father was the devil.

 

[Howie]

Those designations do not mean that every single act of an unregenerate person is sin, nor is every single act of a regenerate person pleasing to the Lord. You have agreed that the Bible talks about many actions by unregenerate people that are good (the Bible even calls them "righteous" in some instances).

I hear what you're saying, Ivan, and I have nothing to say that I haven't already said.

 

[Theo1689]

Before they sinned, they had a sinless nature.

Where does the Bible teach that Adam & Eve "had a sinless nature"?

 

[Theo1689]

John 8:44 is not talking about typical Joe Unbeliever. It's talking about the Pharisees, who were wicked. Their father was the devil.

So there are "regular" sinners, and then there are "super sinners", the "wicked" Pharisees, or "sinners 2.0"?

Where do you find THAT in Scripture?!

 

[Theo1689]

Those designations do not mean that every single act of an unregenerate person is sin, nor is every single act of a regenerate person pleasing to the Lord. You have agreed that the Bible talks about many actions by unregenerate people that are good (the Bible even calls them "righteous" in some instances).

I would have to respectfully disagree.

What do you do with Rom. 3:10-18, or Isa. 64:6, which calls the best of our "righteous" deeds, "filthy rags" (literally, used menstrual cloths")?

There was a relevant discussion on "Friends", where Joey and Phoebe were having a debate on whether or not it was possible to do completely selfless acts. Everything we do has motives, and those motives tend to be less than good.

For instance, we might give to a charity (presumably a good thing). But did we do it for the tax credit? Did we do it because a family member has a condition (eg. heart disease), and we're hoping that they will find a cure or treatment for our family member?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Where does the Bible teach that Adam & Eve "had a sinless nature"?

It doesn't "say" that. It's by implication. They had not sinned. Sin had never entered the world. How could they possibly have had a sin nature when God described their creation as "very good"?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I would have to respectfully disagree.

What do you do with Rom. 3:10-18, or Isa. 64:6, which calls the best of our "righteous" deeds, "filthy rags" (literally, used menstrual cloths")?

There was a relevant discussion on "Friends", where Joey and Phoebe were having a debate on whether or not it was possible to do completely selfless acts. Everything we do has motives, and those motives tend to be less than good.

For instance, we might give to a charity (presumably a good thing). But did we do it for the tax credit? Did we do it because a family member has a condition (eg. heart disease), and we're hoping that they will find a cure or treatment for our family member?

Yes every act has some stain of sin, but that's also true for believers. Romans 3 does say that "No one" does good. It doesn't say, "no unregenerate person" does good. So if we're going to take Romans 3 to literally mean that no one does good, then it applies to believers as well as believers. But really, the context of that is that nobody does good meritorious to salvation. Which is what I've said all along.

But the Bible does actually laud unregenerate people in some cases for doing good things. Jesus holds the woman giving the copper coins as a model of generosity. That only makes sense if Jesus thinks that's a good thing she does.

 

[shroom]

So there are "regular" sinners, and then there are "super sinners", the "wicked" Pharisees, or "sinners 2.0"?

Where do you find THAT in Scripture?!

They had committed the unforgivable sin. They were "of that wicked one," as Cain was.

I would have to respectfully disagree.

What do you do with Rom. 3:10-18, or Isa. 64:6, which calls the best of our "righteous" deeds, "filthy rags" (literally, used menstrual cloths")?

There was a relevant discussion on "Friends", where Joey and Phoebe were having a debate on whether or not it was possible to do completely selfless acts. Everything we do has motives, and those motives tend to be less than good.

For instance, we might give to a charity (presumably a good thing). But did we do it for the tax credit? Did we do it because a family member has a condition (eg. heart disease), and we're hoping that they will find a cure or treatment for our family member?

Some people do good things because it's the right thing to do. Not everyone has an ulterior motive.

 

[Theo1689]

It doesn't "say" that. It's by implication.

Again... With all due respect, most heresies are born by individuals ASSUMING unBiblical assertions, such as falsely claiming things are true "by implication".

They had not sinned. Sin had never entered the world. How could they possibly have had a sin nature when God described their creation as "very good"?

Forgive me for saying so, but your thought process seems to be very imprecise and scrambled. You want from assuming that A&E had a "sinless nature", to denying that they had a "sin nature". Since the two are not mutually exclusive, you are simply changing the goalposts and abandoning your original argument.

Having a "sin nature" means we will necessarily sin.
Having a "sinless nature" means that we will necessarily never sin.

The denial of a sin nature does NOT mean that they have a sinless nature, but only that they are not enslaved in sin. They could still be free to choose to sin.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Again... With all due respect, most heresies are born by individuals ASSUMING unBiblical assertions, such as falsely claiming things are true "by implication".

Ehhhh...

Forgive me for saying so, but your thought process seems to be very imprecise and scrambled. You want from assuming that A&E had a "sinless nature", to denying that they had a "sin nature". Since the two are not mutually exclusive, you are simply changing the goalposts and abandoning your original argument.

Having a "sin nature" means we will necessarily sin.
Having a "sinless nature" means that we will necessarily never sin.

The denial of a sin nature does NOT mean that they have a sinless nature, but only that they are not enslaved in sin. They could still be free to choose to sin.

I was having a conversation with Howie. If you'll notice, I brought Augustine's view into play there and said he was right about posse peccare and posse non peccare. I wasn't moving the goalposts. It was the flow of a conversation.

 

[Theo1689]

I was having a conversation with Howie. If you'll notice,

And you are in a PUBLIC discussion forum, not a private exchange, "if you'll notice".

I brought Augustine's view into play there and said he was right about posse peccare and posse non peccare. I wasn't moving the goalposts. It was the flow of a conversation.

You should probably study it further, as it's unclear as to whether you adequately understand it or not (no offense, sincerely).

You have to realize that "negation" and "opposite" are not the same thing. This is a typical error made by beginning students of logic.

For instance, the negation of "all" is not "none", it is "not all", or "some".
The negation of "all" is "some", not "none".

And the denial of "sin nature" is NOT "sinless nature".

Ironically, I was going to share Augustine's argument with you earlier, as it seems to go against your own position.

For the benefit of the lurkers:

Pre-fall	posse peccare, posse non peccare	able to sin, able to not sin
Post-fall unregenerate	non posse non peccare	not able to not sin
Post-fall regenerate	posse non peccare	able to not sin
glorified man	non posse peccare	unable to sin

 

[Kampioen]

And you are in a PUBLIC discussion forum, not a private exchange, "if you'll notice".

You should probably study it further, as it's unclear as to whether you adequately understand it or not (no offense, sincerely).

You have to realize that "negation" and "opposite" are not the same thing. This is a typical error made by beginning students of logic.

For instance, the negation of "all" is not "none", it is "not all", or "some".
The negation of "all" is "some", not "none".

And the denial of "sin nature" is NOT "sinless nature".

Ironically, I was going to share Augustine's argument with you earlier, as it seems to go against your own position.

For the benefit of the lurkers:

Pre-fall	posse peccare, posse non picare	able to sin, able to not sin
Post-fall unregenerate	non posse non picare	not able to not sin
Post-fall regenerate	posse non picare	able to not sin
glorified man	non posse picare	unable to sin

Why doesn't Post-fall regenerate include able to sin, like Pre-fall does?

 

[Theo1689]

Why doesn't Post-fall regenerate include able to sin?

Fine.

Let me share the comprehensive version:

Pre-fall	posse peccare, posse non picare	able to sin, able to not sin
Post-fall unregenerate	posse peccare non posse non peccare	able to sin not able to not sin
Post-fall regenerate	posse peccare posse non peccare	able to sin able to not sin
glorified man	non posse peccare posse non peccare	unable to sin able to not sin

 

[Kampioen]

Fine.

Let me share the comprehensive version:

Pre-fall	posse peccare, posse non picare	able to sin, able to not sin
Post-fall unregenerate	posse peccare non posse non peccare	able to sin not able to not sin
Post-fall regenerate	posse peccare posse non peccare	able to sin able to not sin
glorified man	non posse peccare posse non peccare	unable to sin able to not sin

Did Augustine believe Adam's sin and the Post-fall regenerate sin were prederemined?

 

[Theo1689]

Did Augustine believe Adam's sin and the Post-fall regenerate sin were prederemined?

1) I have absolutely no idea what "prederemined" means.

2) If you are interested in what "Augustine believed", his writings are readily available online for free. I recommend ccel.org.

3) You might find his anti-Pelagian writings interesting, especially his "Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints".

Work info: NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

 

[shroom]

1) I have absolutely no idea what "prederemined" means.

You're as unforgiving as you think God is. You know full well he meant predetermined.